| Court: | US Supreme Court |
| Facts: | Some sort of firearms violation, not clear what the specifics are. Recieving on that had been sold across state lines? Oh, and probably he was a felon. |
| Posture: | Convicted at trial, sentenced. Appeals court affirms the conviction, but remands for re-sentencing. |
| Issue: | When a single act violates two statutes, and they carry different penalties, then what do we do about sentencing? |
| Holding: | You can sentence to the greater penalty. |
| Rule: | There's nothing in the statute with the greater penalty that says you have to sentence under the lesser. |
| Reasoning: | A prosecutor can pick which to charge, and we think that's OK. The defendant can't select how he gets charged, so why should he be able to select how he gets sentenced? |
| Dicta: | Notice isn't an issue here: each statute gives notice independently; the fact that the same conduct may violate both does not invalidate the notice afforded by each. |